Kim Schrier (D-WA)
Permanent Housing Affordability Act
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Permanent Housing Affordability Act aims to promote shared equity models of homeownership to create permanent housing for low- and moderate-income households. It establishes a Lasting Home Affordability Fund to provide low-interest construction loans to eligible entities. The bill also creates a Lasting Affordability Homeownership Grant Pilot Program for purchasing land or existing properties. Additionally, the act mandates research, public awareness, and outreach regarding community land trusts and shared equity models. Finally, it amends existing law to allow the conveyance of surplus federal land to community land trusts at a significant discount.
Yes· 3 of 35
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly targets low- and moderate-income households with permanently affordable housing and financing.
- Scored +9
Does this make housing cost less?
The core purpose of the bill is to create permanently affordable owner-occupied housing through shared equity and community land trusts.
- Scored +7
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Targeting redlined areas specifically addresses systemic housing inequities affecting African American communities.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -3
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Shared equity models reduce the potential for high-profit real estate speculation.
- Scored -3
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Shared equity models reduce the potential for high-profit real estate speculation.
- Scored -3
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Shared equity models reduce the potential for high-profit real estate speculation.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Access to Low-Interest Loans: Eligible entities can receive loans with an interest rate of not more than 3 percent and an origocation fee of no more than 1 percent to fund construction or rehabilitation (Section 3(c)(2)).
-
Affordable Housing Opportunities: The bill facilitates the creation of owner-occupied housing that remains affordable for at least 99 years or the maximum allowed by state law (Section 2(2)(D)).
-
Targeted Support for High-Need Areas: Loans may be prioritized for properties located in areas with high cost burdens, redlining, or those at risk of displacement (Section 3(c)(4)).
-
Financial Assistance for Land and Property: The pilot program provides grants to eligible entities to purchase vacant land or existing properties to develop or renovate for sale to homebuyers (Section 4(b)).
-
Reduced Cost for Land Acquisition: The government may convey surplus real property to community land trusts at a discount of at least 75 percent of the market value (Section 6(a)(3)).
-
Education and Resources: The bill funds a public awareness campaign to educate the public and financial sector about the benefits and responsibilities of shared equity models (Section 5(b)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Resale Restrictions: Properties in these programs are subject to resale-restricted terms and a resale formula that limits the resale value of the property (Section 2(7)(B)).
-
Sale Restrictions to Specific Groups: Under the pilot program, developed homes must be sold to households with incomes at or below a specific percentage of the area median income (Section 4(d)(3)).
-
Potential Property Reversion: If property transferred from the government ceases to be used for a shared equity model, the government has the option to have the property revert to it (Section 6(a)(2)(A)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly targets low- and moderate-income households with permanently affordable housing and financing. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Targeting redlined areas specifically addresses systemic housing inequities affecting African American communities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Increases affordable housing access for low-income minority populations. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Increases affordable housing access for low-income minority populations. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Provides funding for Tribal governments and underserved areas. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Specifically targets rural areas for funding and provides higher income eligibility for rural homebuyers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Focuses on high cost burdens and redlining, which are prevalent in urban centers. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Provides a pathway to homeownership for young adults who are often priced out of the traditional market. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Benefits those up to 120% of area median income through more affordable homeownership options. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Helps moderate-income families secure affordable housing. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increases availability of affordable housing, which is critical for low-income individuals with disabilities. Would retired people be better off under this? — Provides affordable ownership options for low-income retirees. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased construction activity often utilizes union labor in many jurisdictions. Would children be better off under this? — Improves housing stability for families with children via affordable owner-occupied housing. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Increases affordable housing options for low-income immigrant families. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Increases stability and ownership opportunities for low-income LGBTQ individuals. Would men be better off under this? — Increases stability and ownership opportunities for low-income men. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increases availability of affordable housing options for low-income seniors. Would students be better off under this? — Creates future pathways to affordable homeownership for recent graduates. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Increases availability of affordable housing for low-income veterans. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Low-income white households in rural or underserved areas may benefit. Would women be better off under this? — Increases stability and ownership opportunities for low-income women. Would business owners be better off under this? — Construction activity creates opportunities for contractors and materials suppliers. Would farmers be better off under this? — Rural development focus may indirectly benefit farming communities. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Shared equity models reduce the potential for high-profit real estate speculation. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Shared equity models reduce the potential for high-profit real estate speculation. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Shared equity models reduce the potential for high-profit real estate speculation. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income households are excluded by income caps and may see less appreciation in nearby properties due to limited equity models.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The core purpose of the bill is to create permanently affordable owner-occupied housing through shared equity and community land trusts. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increases access to affordable homeownership for low- and moderate-income households. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Prioritizes loans for areas affected by redlining and high cost burdens, which often correlate with historically marginalized communities. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — By increasing the supply of affordable housing, it helps reduce the risk of displacement and homelessness.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Allows the conveyance of surplus federal real property to community land trusts at a significant discount. Does this invest in rural communities? — Specifically mentions providing grants to rural areas and providing higher income caps for qualified homebuyers in rural areas.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases the role of the Treasury and HUD in administering housing loans and granting land. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires detailed reporting on loans, grants, and surplus land conveyances to Congress.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Provides funding for construction and rehabilitation of housing, which typically stimulates local construction jobs. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Encourages investment in housing infrastructure and provides low-interest loans for development. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Low-interest loans are available to eligible entities, which may include small nonprofit developers. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Establishes new grants and funds for housing, increasing government expenditures. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes new federal spending totaling hundreds of millions of dollars over several years.
- 3/26/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.